Physics still can't identify matter that makes up the majority of the universe

Map of all matter – most of which is invisible dark matter – between Earth and the edge of the observable universe. Credit: ESA/NASA/JPL-Caltech, CC BY

The past few decades have ushered in an amazing era in the science of cosmology. A diverse array of high-precision measurements has allowed us to reconstruct our universe's history in remarkable detail.

This line of research has, frankly, been more successful than I think we had any right to have hoped. We know more about the origin and history of our universe today than almost anyone a few decades ago would have guessed that we would learn in such a short time.

But despite these very considerable successes, there remains much more to be learned. And in some ways, the discoveries made in recent decades have raised as many new questions as they have answered.

One of the most vexing gets at the heart of what our universe is actually made of. Cosmological observations have determined the average density of matter in our universe to very high precision. But this density turns out to be much greater than can be accounted for with ordinary atoms.

After decades of measurements and debate, we are now confident that the overwhelming majority of our universe's matter – about 84 percent – is not made up of atoms, or of any other known substance. Although we can feel the gravitational pull of this other matter, and clearly tell that it's there, we simply do not know what it is. This mysterious stuff is invisible, or at least nearly so. For lack of a better name, we call it "dark matter." But naming something is very different from understanding it.

For almost as long as we've known that dark matter exists, physicists and astronomers have been devising ways to try to learn what it's made of. They've built ultra-sensitive detectors, deployed indeep underground mines, in an effort to measure the gentle impacts of individual dark matter particles colliding with atoms.

And we have searched for signs of dark matter using incredible machines which accelerate beams of particles – typically protons or electrons – up to the highest speeds possible, and then smash them into one another in an effort to convert their energy into matter. The idea is these collisions could create new and exotic substances, perhaps including the kinds of particles that make up the dark matter of our universe.

Experiments at CERN are trying to zero in on dark matter – but so far no dice. Credit: CERN, CC BY-ND

As recently as a decade ago, most cosmologists – including myself – were reasonably confident that we would soon begin to solve the puzzle of dark matter. After all, there was an ambitious experimental program on the horizon, which we anticipated would enable us to identify the nature of this substance and to begin to measure its properties. This program included the world's most powerful particle accelerator – the Large Hadron Collider – as well as an array of other new experiments and powerful telescopes.

But things did not play out the way that we expected them to. Although these experiments and observations have been carried out as well as or better than we could have hoped, the discoveries did not come.

Over the past 15 years, for example, experiments designed to detect individual particles of dark matter have become a million times more sensitive, and yet no signs of these elusive particles have appeared. And although the Large Hadron Collider has by all technical standards performed beautifully, with the exception of the Higgs boson, no new particles or other phenomena have been discovered.

The stubborn elusiveness of dark matter has left many scientists both surprised and confused. We had what seemed like very good reasons to expect particles of dark matter to be discovered by now. And yet the hunt continues, and the mystery deepens.

At Fermilab, the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search uses towers of disks made from silicon and germanium to search for particle interactions from dark matter. Credit: Reidar Hahn/Fermilab, CC BY

In many ways, we have only more open questions now than we did a decade or two ago. And at times, it can seem that the more precisely we measure our universe, the less we understand it. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, theoretical particle physicists were often very successful at predicting the kinds of particles that would be discovered as accelerators became increasingly powerful. It was a truly impressive run.

But our prescience seems to have come to an end – the long-predicted particles associated with our favorite and most well-motivated theories have stubbornly refused to appear. Perhaps the discoveries of such particles are right around the corner, and our confidence will soon be restored. But right now, there seems to be little support for such optimism.

In response, droves of physicists are going back to their chalkboards, revisiting and revising their assumptions. With bruised egos and a bit more humility, we are desperately attempting to find a new way to make sense of our world.

Citation:
Physics still can't identify matter that makes up the majority of the universe (2017, October 26)
retrieved 25 May 2019
from https://phys.org/news/2017-10-physics-majority-universe.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Does the latest and greatest inflationary model of the Universe, I think they call it eternal inflation take the dark matter and dark energy in consideration, after all whatever "inflated" didn't it have to also contain this mystery material? They call it the "inflaton" field. In any event wouldn't this inflaton field have to account for these missing pieces or are they like something the tooth fairy takes care of? I like to think of the "eternal inflation" model of the universe as "eternal confusion", but I don't think anyone would appreciate that so I will keep it to myself. Yours truly ,eternally confused

I think the missing matter has been turned into energy through annihilation. Most of it occurring in the early U when there was so much more matter/antimatter around to annihilate. It's what caused inflation. The remnants of what's left is in the galaxies. Still some of it going on when we see gamma ray bursts. So what we see as dark matter is actually radiation pressure left over from inflation.

I like to think of the "eternal inflation" model of the universe as "eternal confusion"

It's more like "intentional confusion". These asstrophysicists are not educated to think in terms of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so they create these perpetual motion fantasies for themselves and call real scientists foul mouthed names like DM Fritz Zwicky used on Einstein when referring to him as a "spherical bastard".

You get this DM slop & swill pseudo-science from those who do not have the intellectual capacity to get an education in Nuclear Physics like Einstein did, in their place you get the Fritz Zwicky asstrophysicists & his present day following of overage Trekkies.

Well, my ridiculously hypothetical speculation remains in play. Perhaps I should risk the copyright infringement and used the word 'ludicrous'?

My Guesstimate... There is a meta-universe surrounding our tiny little cosmos. The meta-universe is a primordial chaos of some sort of exotic-gravitrons.

Completely surrounding the accidental-universe we inhabit. The exotic-gravitrons are pulling our universe apart.. Looks like inflation. Though being invisible as being outside our POV, sure smells like dark matter!

I don't think we should be too disappointed, the solution, one way or another, will come...and it may surprise us all. I'm confident that something will happen, not disastrous I hope, or technology will make further advances and begin to see things we don't currently recognize. Just think of the advances we've made in the past 400 to 500 years and that's without leaving the planet. Let's not be greedy and have it all on one plate. Some discoveries will have to wait until we are able to travel through space. Maybe DM is some kind of phenomenon that does or has in the past 'absorb/absorbed matter and has a peculiar 'event horizon' and no 'singularity'. Please don't bother to say this is wrong for this and that reason, I know I am, but the universe is a fascinating place and sometimes it's good to stop wondering, just for a short time, take a breather and realize just what an amazing place it is.

...My Guesstimate... There is a meta-universe surrounding our tiny little cosmos. The meta-universe is a primordial chaos of some sort of exotic-gravitrons.Completely surrounding the accidental-universe we inhabit. ...

Oh...and our planet (and every other piece of rock in the universe) would be blowing up...instantly. That is (luckily) not observed(not that anyone'd be around to observe it)"

Galaxies are what's left after everything else has blown up - ergo inflation. Well almost everything else. We still see gamma ray bursts like about every day. And we are around to observe it. Which raises a good question - why would nature go to all this trouble if there really wasn't anyone around to observe it? Dinosaurs were great creatures but they couldn't lie on their backs and contemplate our view of the galaxies. Or build telescopes.

its the mass of time! if you call this universe "space time", and can measure the matter in space, how about the mass time? time is not constant and can vary, therefore the time particles have mass. move along now.

"these exist below the first nonradiative n = 1 state, erroneously called the "ground state" by quantum theory. Hydrinos further react to form the corresponding very stable molecules, and neither hydrinos nor molecular hydrinos emit or absorb electromagnetic radiation as is typical of electronic transitions of the ordinary species.

"Observations support that hydrinos is the identity of the dark matter of the universe. Brilliant Light Power is engaged in experimentally characterizing hydrinos and developing the technology for commercial use..."

I am leaning toward the idea that it's us. Our system enclosed inside the Oort shell somehow is leading us to make calculations for the rest of the universe based on a strangely isolated and unusual us. We have this gravity well we live on and think the rest of the universe uses the same format. Maybe not.

its the mass of time! if you call this universe "space time", and can measure the matter in space, how about the mass time? time is not constant and can vary, therefore the time particles have mass. move along now.

Yes, they act as though they can talk about things in the past without paying attention to time. How can they do that when their theories say that space and time are not separate?

They seem to be assuming that the way they it now is the way it has always been, despite the theory being quite literally about how relative everything is. And their evidence is the way light behaved billions of years ago as it passed by some billions-of-years-old structures, and that was billions of years after the light was emitted. So it is not necessarily representative of the way things are now, but only the way things were at that point in spacetime.

I've said before, and I'll get derided again by the usual suspects, that it looks like gravity has effects over long timescales that they are not taking into account. Not that gravity changes, but that it acts on matter/energy in spacetime in such a way as to have emergent effects.

The longer you sit in a gravity well, the deeper your well will seem relative to the rest of the universe. So if you are a galaxy that has been part of a cluster for billions of years, you will be held in by the walls of the well despite your apparent rotational speed being high enough to fling you out of the cluster.

Light has to follow the geodesics of gravity wells. So light passing by an old, massive structure will be subject to the same effects as that galaxy in the cluster--it will be pulled toward the center in a way that seems "too much" for the mass you can detect.

The lengthening of geodesics also explains apparent accelerated expansion over time. No dark energy, just longer paths.

So my guesses are based on the idea that general relativity is static, that it describes the state of things at a specific point in spacetime. You have to solve all those field equations, and all you get is where things were at that moment, or how much energy they had. To find out what was where a second later, you have to solve it all over again.

What would be needed is a dynamic framework, built around the formulas that I'm calling static, to enable a description of what happens when gravity continues to act on a system over time. Current theory seems to say that a gravity well instantaneously reaches its endpoint, never gets deeper or shallower, because that's the value you get for that much mass and energy. But that forgets the fact that the system you are looking has to be relative to the rest of the universe. If there is no explicit bottom to gravity wells built into the theory, then the well should get deeper as time passes, relative to things outside your system.

Light has to follow the geodesics of gravity wells. So light passing by an old, massive structure will be subject to the same effects as that galaxy in the cluster--it will be pulled toward the center in a way that seems "too much" for the mass you can detect.

The lengthening of geodesics also explains apparent accelerated expansion over time. No dark energy, just longer paths.

Gravity is...simply the stretching of electron orbitals as a reaction to stacking matter.

Don't think you can stretch an electron orbit without knocking the electron out of its orbit. As around black holes. The space inside the orbits of atoms can be trillions of times that occupied by the nuclear matter. So to produce a neutron star where the nuclear material is stacked you have to expel lots of spacetime. In addition the spacetime energy density inside an atom is much greater than that of empty space. OBTW I think this is where the dark energy hides - inside quantized matter. So increasing the energy density around the nova or supernova fuels the expansion of spacetime. The energy density required for particle formation is then released back to spacetime from where it came. Conservation of energy. Nothing mysterious about it. But the supply of quantized matter is not inexhaustive so we don't expect the expansion to go on forever.

droves of physicists are going back to their chalkboards, revisiting and revising their assumptions. With bruised egos and a bit more humility, we are desperately attempting to find a new way to make sense of our world.

And hopefully the next Einstein or Dirac is looking back beyond a treasured assumption to derive a more fundamental set of laws of physics.

Fundamentally:- What drives the Heisenberg uncertainty? Why is only the weak force so anti-symmetric? What is the reality behind the Copenhagen fudge explanation of wave-particle duality?

The weak force is asymmetric because it is the result of a broken symmetry of the underlying electroweak force. That's also how it got such massive quanta.

Every interpretation of particle physics has a "fudge" explanation. It appears this way to us because quantum physics does not follow the laws or logic of classical physics, which is the physics we see in everyday life.

Heisenberg uncertainty is a consequence of the fundamental wave-like nature of particle physics.

Noether's theorem says all forces have underlying conservations and symmetries but only the weak force is so anti-matter anti-symmetric... Why?

Quantum wave equations showed us that Heisenberg uncertainty must be true but as it is one of the most fundamental properties of space at all scales, doesn't explain... Why?

So many of our equations, even the quantum ones, are empirical (Derived from experiment).We need more derived from first principles and that yield extra results like the Dirac equation did and General relativity did.

Noether's Theorem doesn't say anything about forces. It says that for every continuous symmetry there is a conservation law.

De Broglie matter waves are empirically measured reality. They are also a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. It is this wave nature of both matter and energy that results in Heisenberg uncertainty as I said above. Waves are not localized phenomena like particles; the more you localize when measuring a wave, the less you know about the wave. If matter were completely particle-like then there would be no uncertainty; it is its wave-like nature that is responsible for uncertainty.

You are asserting the primacy of principle; in fact, experiment is primary. Theory must always conform to experiment.

Light has to follow the geodesics of gravity wells. So light passing by an old, massive structure will be subject to the same effects...

The lengthening of geodesics...

So... you're saying a gravity well adds length to the path?

Yes, I wondered about that too. I thought that a gravity well was really a gravitational potential field, in astrophysics that is, and is not, in general, associated with with GR and the curved path that light takes. A gwell is more associated with the 'depth' of the well, as least that is how I understand it. I'm sure someone here will correct my intuitive idea.

A gwell is more associated with the 'depth' of the well, as least that is how I understand it. I'm sure someone here will correct my intuitive idea.

The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, it demonstrates there is an "apparent" change in the velocity of electromagnetic waves, that velocity decreases as an EM wave gets nearer and nearer to the sun. This "apparent reduction" of measurement of velocity is the result of the angle at which the photon is traveling, whether observing the photon dead on or at a parallax view from the source, the photon's velocity has actually has not changed, the change is simply an apparent change & not a real change.

After decades of measurements and debate, we are now confident that the overwhelming majority of our universe's matter – about 84 percent – is not made up of atoms, or of any other known substance. Although we can feel the gravitational pull of this other matter, and clearly tell that it's there, we simply do not know what it is. This mysterious stuff is invisible, or at least nearly so. For lack of a better name, we call it "dark matter." But naming something is very different from understanding it.

The ONLY evidence for DM is provided by the theory of GRAVITY. Perhaps that theory is completely wrong, and the effect is caused by the expansion of all matter (i.e. the passage of TIME).

Noether's Theorem doesn't say anything about forces. It says that for every continuous symmetry there is a conservation law

Conservation law is about energy, momentum and forces, thus the Noether theorem is about symmetry of force action - nothing else.

The fundamental entity is the symmetry; it is a basic feature of the universe. A conservation law emerges from a continuous symmetry, by Noether's Theorem. This is the mainstream view of modern physics.

For a nice simple example, energy is not a force. The statement I responded to was, "Noether's theorem says all forces have underlying conservations and symmetries..." and it's incorrect in the exact way I said.

A conservation law emerges from a continuous symmetry, by Noether's Theorem.

Except dissipative systems with continuous symmetries. Macroscopic systems are dissipative because spacetime has viscosity. So a quantum theory is not going to work for gravity. The best you can say is that the forces of expansion round up quantized matter which cannot expand and isolates it, as in a black hole. An application of the principle of least action. Action being at the interface of the forces of expansion and quantized matter. Nature minimizes this action by minimizing the surface at the interface. To do this it rounds up quantized matter into a more spherical configuration. Thus gravity.

Yeah, I didn't figure there was any answer for that question. Downvoting a question you can't answer without any actual argument indicates that the view previously expressed that the question isn't answered about is unscientific. Make a response if you got one; otherwise you are shown to be a troll.

Reads to me like Hooper has given up on LHC observing supersymmetric particles, which is the simplest explanation for dark matter (c.f. "the WIMP miracle" of their predicted density matching DM density) and should naturally be within energy reach of LHC. But I have not seen most particle physicists claim that yet.

To field some misunderstandings here:- Conspiracies are neither supported by the article (notes unexpected success) nor by the proposed scope (unlikely to last long with that many in on it). Conversely, there is no evidence for it.- The "wave-particle duality" of the Copenhagen QM was replaced by quantum field theory almost a century ago. The field is fundamental, particles are quasistable excitations in them.- DM is observed independently in many ways, so is not in question as the article notes. Nor is it "monoatomic", since "dark" means it interacts weakly with electromagnetism.

[ctd]- The current inflation cosmology does not mean dark matter or anything else we see now existed and was 'blown' up during inflation. Inflation is, most likely, a quantum field in its empty vacuum state (or else with massive particles long diluted to practically nothing remaining). I refer to the many articles of cosmologist Ethan Siegler on "Starting With A Bang". When inflation stops, likely locally (c.f. eternal inflation which is what Planck seems to have seen), energy is released and a [so called pocket] universe like ours can appear.

Yeah, I didn't figure there was any answer for that question. Downvoting a question you can't answer without any actual argument indicates that the view previously expressed that the question isn't answered about is unscientific. Make a response if you got one; otherwise you are shown to be a troll.

Hey, Schneibo, maybe you try be the one to lead by example, knock it off with your down voting. It's just so entertaining listening to little ole foul mouthed YOU complain about the same things that you yourself are guilty of.

Maybe if you'd just learn a little bit about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & the fact ENTROPY IS NOT CONSUMED, I wouldn't need to post so many Comments here negating all the wacky narratives you come up with to advance your advocacy for Perpetual Motion.

QFieldTheory may well be currently in favour. But doesn't indicate they represent reality just because the particles of those fields do. (Though they may be manifestations of some TOEverything field. We don't know as we still have too many unknowns.)

The difficulty is choosing the right fundamentals or first principles to draft a theory of reality behind the standard model equations. My bet is on the Heisenberg uncertainty and choosing a sub-set of symmetries and adding some new one relating matter/anti-matter.It could take a while if it must predict inflation, and weak force asymmetry, and probably emergent space-time, as well as the dark sectors.

...Maybe if you'd just learn a little bit about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & the fact ENTROPY IS NOT CONSUMED, I wouldn't need to post so many Comments here negating all the wacky narratives you come up with to advance your advocacy for Perpetual Motion.

No, Entropy is not "consumed". It can, however, be re-directed or "transferred"...

Problem with Newton's 3rd law was that he forgot to use the term instantaneous before the word reaction. Cause and effect is not some signal propagated at the speed of light. Spooky I know. Have a happy Holloween!

Light has to follow the geodesics of gravity wells. So light passing by an old, massive structure will be subject to the same effects as that galaxy in the cluster--it will be pulled toward the center in a way that seems "too much" for the mass you can detect.

The lengthening of geodesics also explains apparent accelerated expansion over time. No dark energy, just longer paths.

So... you're saying a gravity well adds length to the path?

Yes. If approaching the speed of light dilates time and compresses space, then curving spacetime has to lengthen the path of light. That's what gravity is, so that's what it does.

- DM is observed independently in many ways, so is not in question as the article notes. Nor is it "monoatomic", since "dark" means it interacts weakly with electromagnetism.

There are observed phenomena, but the things that are called "observations of DM" by DM proponents are really their explanations for those phenomena that would fit within their version of the theory. The phenomena could be explained by other means, and thus you are not "observing DM." You are only choosing DM as the explanation of the observation.

Light has to follow the geodesics of gravity wells. So light passing by an old, massive structure will be subject to the same effects as that galaxy in the cluster--it will be pulled toward the center in a way that seems "too much" for the mass you can detect.

The lengthening of geodesics also explains apparent accelerated expansion over time. No dark energy, just longer paths.

So... you're saying a gravity well adds length to the path?

Yes. If approaching the speed of light dilates time and compresses space, then curving spacetime has to lengthen the path of light. That's what gravity is, so that's what it does.

Light is already AT the speed of light. It only "compresses" space by travelling at 186 thousand,some odd mps. Gravity, on the other hand, is what compresses space. So, if any given quantified section of space is compressed, wouldn't that shorten (or at least not affect) the photon path speed?

DS,wouldn't that be more correct as fields as fundamental characteristic (of energy) WITHIN spacetime?

No. The fields all extend everywhere in the universe. They are a constituent of every spot in the universe. If an electron went someplace where there isn't any electron field it would disappear. If a photon went someplace where there isn't any EM field, it would disappear too. In order for these things to propagate, their fields have to be everywhere.

DS,wouldn't that be more correct as fields as fundamental characteristic (of energy) WITHIN spacetime?

No. The fields all extend everywhere in the universe. They are a constituent of every spot in the universe. If an electron went someplace where there isn't any electron field it would disappear. If a photon went someplace where there isn't any EM field, it would disappear too. In order for these things to propagate, their fields have to be everywhere.

That means they're a characteristic of spacetime.

So.... You're saying spacetime is a "field" (complex system) made up of all other known types of fields?Maybe I'm just not gettin' what ya mean by "field"...

Some relativists get all hot under the collar when you call gravity a field, but overall, I'd say that spacetime is the collection of all fields at all places. It's kind of inexact in more than one way, but that's pretty much the easy way to think about it.

Some relativists get all hot under the collar when you call gravity a field, but overall, I'd say that spacetime is the collection of all fields at all places. It's kind of inexact in more than one way, but that's pretty much the easy way to think about it.

DS,wouldn't that be more correct as fields as fundamental characteristic (of energy) WITHIN spacetime?

No. The fields all extend everywhere in the universe. They are a constituent of every spot in the universe. If an electron went someplace where there isn't any electron field it would disappear. If a photon went someplace where there isn't any EM field, it would disappear too. In order for these things to propagate, their fields have to be everywhere.

That means they're a characteristic of spacetime.

That's just circular. The photon is the instantiation of the field, and its traveling is the propagation of the field. It can't go where there is no field because it is the forefront of the field itself. Same with any particle.

So if particles pass into some area where no particles have been before, they cause spacetime to become there. There's no principle of conservation of space.

But you can't find the edge; you can only see what is, not what isn't.

Some relativists get all hot under the collar when you call gravity a field, but overall, I'd say that spacetime is the collection of all fields at all places. It's kind of inexact in more than one way, but that's pretty much the easy way to think about it.

So... we're sayin' the "fields actually have to exist in order for a "particle" generating that field to exist?Wouldn't it be easier to just say the fields are an emergent property of what ever it is that generates them?

Are we talking QFT here? So in a classical rod moving electrons (already produced by the field, say) do not create the orthogonal magnetic and electric fields but the reverse? This would indeed be another disposal of a classical analogy, because particles of matter (i.e. dirt) make the field we stand on (to give elementary examples of co-ordinates axes). This assuming the definition of a 'field' as an area or space that has a given value at different points.How would your quote be interpreted with regard to DM with perhaps an implied grav. gradient? That is, should we be looking for an implied gradient of some field that DM might create as opposed to particle detection? Hmm, interesting.

@Mimath, from the point of view of the construction of physics theories, the fundamental entity in the theories is symmetry. These are results of experiments that remain the same over transformations, like moving from place to place, or time to time, or turning around to different angles. From the point of view of the fundamental entities in the universe, these are the fields. Spacetime is constructed from fields, and these fields define everything that can happen in the universe.

QFT hints at this, but doesn't define it; it's the universe, and our theoretical construction of physics that define these structures.

Are we talking QFT here? So in a classical rod moving electrons (already produced by the field, say) do not create the orthogonal magnetic and electric fields but the reverse? This would indeed be another disposal of a classical analogy, because particles of matter (i.e. dirt) make the field we stand on (to give elementary examples of co-ordinates axes). This assuming the definition of a 'field' as an area or space that has a given value at different points.How would your quote be interpreted with regard to DM with perhaps an implied grav. gradient? That is, should we be looking for an implied gradient of some field that DM might create as opposed to particle detection? Hmm, interesting.

@Mimath, from the point of view of the construction of physics theories, the fundamental entity in the theories is symmetry. These are results of experiments that remain the same over transformations, like moving from place to place, or time to time, or turning around to different angles. From the point of view of the fundamental entities in the universe, these are the fields. Spacetime is constructed from fields, and these fields define everything that can happen in the universe. QFT hints at this, but doesn't define it; it's the universe, and our theoretical construction of physics that define these structures.

Thanks for the reply and I understand.3D symmetry using 'monkey blocks' (including the head an 'old world' monkey= 'valency' of 6) and so a basically flat universe would imply a symmetry of its own without regard to a field. Now I, a layman, might tend to regard that as the fundamental entity and not any symmetric field(s) that it might/does contain. (cont.)

(cont.) Now impose 'change' on this structure and we have a space-time continuum (change=our arrow of time). However the A of T cannot flow if there is nothing in the symmetric block to change, enter fields. What then causes the underlying/fundamental energy entity to 'move' and create change?So with the current topic of DM what might the alternatives be for its symmetry to be static and unchanging and thereby be undetectable as an active field in our universe? I hope that you can see that I'm asking questions and not making proposals (in the same way that I'm looking at the Quarternion (8) [Q8] symmetry that might me help understand other cosmological/QT principles.). Again, thanks

3D symmetry using 'monkey blocks' and so a basically flat universe would imply a symmetry of its own without regard to a field.

I'm not quite sure what this means. Simply by allowing 4D symmetry you already have gravity. So now you've already got a field (again, watch out for those pesky pedantic relativists).

Now I, a layman, might tend to regard that as the fundamental entity and not any symmetric field(s) that it might/does contain.

But as I pointed out, you've already got a field if you have spacetime: gravity. So even if you regard pure spacetime without any other fields, you still have gravity.

This means that the most basic characteristic of the universe is its dimensionality. As soon as it has that it has a field. This is not mainstream, but it's how I see things. And there's the answer to @Whyde's question: dimensionality generates the fields.

Regarding DM, we don't yet know if it is a variation in the gravity field or a new field generating excitations that we would interpret as a particle we haven't seen yet. The evidence is still being collected. Most physicists think the latter, which is why we call it dark "matter." But nobody knows for sure. Experiments and observations are ongoing. We'll have to wait and see.

Be very cautious here: in my last two posts I have expressed an opinion that is not mainstream. These are my own views and that's not something I usually discuss, and never without that disclaimer. I think dimensionality is the fundamental entity, and this is a very, shall we say, "stringy" point of view. But I constantly look for evidence I might be wrong; so far I haven't seen any. As physics is seen today by the mainstream, symmetry and field are the most basic characteristics of the universe.

I note that despite making a major fuss over the "untestability" of string physics, Lee Smolin's LQG hasn't made any more testable predictions than string physics, and for that matter neither has any quantum gravity theory.

@Da Schneib, Well, I'm not a scientist so I can 'hammer' you, Ha? But I won't because in a way what you've said about 'dimensionality' is, in my interpretation, along the lines to what I was intimating.

Particles don't....

So what generates the fields...?

There's the question. And what makes them conservative/symmetrical?

My own form of 'correction' to what you stated about gravity is not that it's a field but what might be an analog of a lake because as such they can be shallow or otherwise. My choice a math analogy is that a rank 2 tensor describes the variations of gradients upon the surface of said field while a '3D block' rank 3 tensor might be a description of variations but not just on the surface. As far as DM is concerned I'm suggestion we take your 'dimensionality' and impose symmetrical gradient's upon it. Could we end up with the 'gravitational' anomaly' that DM seems to imply mass? Gee I said enough to be hanged, drawn & quartered, Ha!

If you mean space without time, @Whyde, nothing could move so there would be no such thing as symmetry, but there would still be field; unfortunately the field could not be measured since to do so requires motion and therefore time.

If you mean space without time, @Whyde, nothing could move so there would be no such thing as symmetry, but there would still be field; unfortunately the field could not be measured since to do so requires motion and therefore time.

Yep, you said it right there...so what is about 'time' that makes things move? That's a rhetorical question because I think we've had similar discussions before. This is where I am working way off mainstream and best if I leave it there. Anyway thanks for the discussion, much appreciated I assure you.

@MimothThere's only one way to measure time, and that is by measuring a change in the relative positions of matter. (please correct me if you know of any other way?). So, turning this around, what we call time is only states of matter, and does not otherwise exist except subjectively to us (bit like gravity). Its not time that makes things move, its things moving that make time......

From my Aunt Carrie's dairy, posted in 1889 I believe:While others beautiful as the ethereal kind,the nobler potions want the knowing mind.In outward show, heaven gave to them the power to excel ,but heaven denied the power of thinking well .

Regarding DM, we don't yet know if it is a variation in the gravity field or a new field generating excitations that we would interpret as a particle we haven't seen yet. The evidence is still being collected. Most physicists think the latter, which is why we call it dark "matter." But nobody knows for sure. Experiments and observations are ongoing. We'll have to wait and see.

I hate to ruin your day, but I agree about particles. You will probably say I don't even understand, whatever. I think particles don't exist. What we observe, we interpret as particles. But really, we are seeing the point of reconnection of the fields. Like those plasma ball toys, where the light goes where your finger is--when you observe the electron, you are not seeing where it is, you are seeing where you happened to observe it. The electron is actually the field in the space where you might observe it.

At which point I can get on board with the idea of dark matter IF it is put as you just did, a field generating excitations that we exhibit as particles. Obviously something is going on to modify gravity in those observations.

That is not the same as being on board with current theories of dark matter. Those seem to involve too much self-serving pretzel making. Too many ignored coincidences and ad hoc complications. A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.

At which point I can get on board with the idea of dark matter IF it is put as you just did, a field generating excitations that we exhibit as particles. Obviously something is going on to modify gravity in those observations.

That is not the same as being on board with current theories of dark matter. Those seem to involve too much self-serving pretzel making. Too many ignored coincidences and ad hoc complications. A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.

I misspoke. It is not obvious that anything is modifying gravity. it is obvious that the current theory of gravity does not explain the observed phenomena. Therefore, either something is modifying gravity, or the theory needs to be modified to fit the facts.

At which point I can get on board with the idea of dark matter IF it is put as you just did, a field generating excitations that we exhibit as particles. Obviously something is going on to modify gravity in those observations.

That is not the same as being on board with current theories of dark matter. Those seem to involve too much self-serving pretzel making. Too many ignored coincidences and ad hoc complications. A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.

Like...DM=mc^2, maybe...?Possibly, "excitations" with a relative mass? Albeit, pretty small, but there is a LOT of space out there....

Yes but you need to know the effective volume displaced by quantized matter. For example let the effective volume displaced by quantized matter be dV and the total volume of the galaxy be V. The differential pressure of expansion inside and outside the galaxy would be dP=-PdV/V where P is the pressure of expansion outside the galaxy. The total force holding the galaxy together is then F=AdP/V=APdV/V where A is the surface area of the galaxy. Not really rocket science. Even a barnyard physicist can figure that one out.

I agree about particles. ... I think particles don't exist. What we observe, we interpret as particles.

So far so good. They're localized excitations of fields, all of them. It's a little more obvious for photons, a little less obvious for electrons, but they are all excitations of various fields. That's what QFT says, more or less.

But really, we are seeing the point of reconnection of the fields. Like those plasma ball toys, where the light goes where your finger is--when you observe the electron, you are not seeing where it is, you are seeing where you happened to observe it. The electron is actually the field in the space where you might observe it.

I don't know what "reconnection" means in this context. But the rest seems a lot like a probability amplitude in QFT.

At which point I can get on board with the idea of dark matter IF it is put as you just did, a field generating excitations that we exhibit as particles. Obviously something is going on to modify gravity in those observations.

That is not the same as being on board with current theories of dark matter. Those seem to involve too much self-serving pretzel making. Too many ignored coincidences and ad hoc complications. A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.

There aren't any current theories of dark matter in the way you seem to mean. There are some hypotheses that are being tested various ways.

The only theory of dark matter is that something is making galaxies and galaxy clusters behave as if they have more mass than we see and it's distributed differently than we see.

Can I request that all readers with an open mind consider this possibility:- All matter is expanding. In a galaxy, the expansion causes stars further from the centre of mass to accelerate faster than those closer in, just as the surface of planet Earth is accelerating away from the centre more than the core (thus providing what we perceive as gravity). We do not "see" this as we ourselves are also expanding, so to us the expansion is not apparent. Now, plot the position of the stars in the galaxy in sequential quantums of time, taking the situation in each quantum as the starting point in turn (which is what we experience subjectively, as each quantum is in fact a new starting point). Hey presto, the stars in the galaxy rotate AS OBSERVED, with no need for DM. Its relatively easy to model this on a computer, plotting each star in a chosen population and predicting its position, remembering to use the subjective velocity vector for each new quantum (the speed/direction we observe!).

Can I request that all readers with an open mind consider this possibility:- All matter is expanding.

Ok. So tell me, all you open-minded readers, how does quantized matter fit into this paradigm? No problem of course with dark matter.

So there is no problem with DM? How do you know that when you have no idea what DM is (if it exists at all!)?As for quantized matter, all I'm saying is that for each succeeding quantum of time, the particles of which matter is comprised are slightly bigger than they were in the proceeding quantum (in practice, time is the choice of states of matter from chaos so that this is true according to the laws of physics which define our universe.

Yes but you need to know the effective volume displaced by quantized matter. For example let the effective volume displaced by quantized matter be dV and the total volume of the galaxy be V. The differential pressure of expansion inside and outside the galaxy would be dP=-PdV/V where P is the pressure of expansion outside the galaxy. The total force holding the galaxy together is then F=AdP/V=APdV/V where A is the surface area of the galaxy. Not really rocket science.

Are you talking just the outside surface area of the galaxy? Or the total surface area of all galactic mass exposed to space?

All matter is expanding. In a galaxy, the expansion causes stars further from the centre of mass to accelerate faster than those closer in, just as the surface of planet Earth is accelerating away from the centre more than the core (thus providing what we perceive as gravity). We do not "see" this as we ourselves are also expanding, so to us the expansion is not apparent.

This is equivalent to saying that all gravity wells get deeper, constantly and indefinitely, with no bottom. Same effects. Just sayin'.

All matter is expanding. In a galaxy, the expansion causes stars further from the centre of mass to accelerate faster than those closer in, just as the surface of planet Earth is accelerating away from the centre more than the core (thus providing what we perceive as gravity). We do not "see" this as we ourselves are also expanding, so to us the expansion is not apparent.

This is equivalent to saying that all gravity wells get deeper, constantly and indefinitely, with no bottom. Same effects. Just sayin'.

So there is no problem with DM? How do you know that when you have no idea what DM is (if it exists at all!)?

DM is a gradient in the DE. Don't worry. There's plenty of it to go around.

As for quantized matter, all I'm saying is that for each succeeding quantum of time, the particles of which matter is comprised are slightly bigger than they were in the proceeding quantum (in practice, time is the choice of states of matter from chaos so that this is true according to the laws of physics which define our universe.

In which case matter expands with each tick of the cosmic clock. I don't think this is what quantization means.

Yes but you need to know the effective volume displaced by quantized matter. For example let the effective volume displaced by quantized matter be dV and the total volume of the galaxy be V. The differential pressure of expansion inside and outside the galaxy would be dP=-PdV/V where P is the pressure of expansion outside the galaxy. The total force holding the galaxy together is then F=AdP/V=APdV/V where A is the surface area of the galaxy. Not really rocket science.

Are you talking just the outside surface area of the galaxy? Or the total surface area of all galactic mass exposed to space?

I believe DM is nothing more than a combination of compounded errors and emergent behavior. For instance, it is difficult to see the effect of the moon on a cup a water and very easy to detect the effect of its gravity on an ocean. Likewise, there are likely factors that don't play much of a role in our solar system, but become much more prominent at the scale of galaxies.

Also, take the equation E = MC^2. Energy can cause gravity just like mass does. We don't currently take photons, neutrinos, nor empty space into consideration when we make these gravity calculations. At a quantum level, matter and antimatter pairs are constantly appearing and annihilating each other. This mass and energy can play a part as well. I don't think it is a single factor that accounts for DM but a combination of many little things which lead to errors in our assumptions which got compounded repeatedly when we used these values to make more assumptions.

People keep telling you EUdiot/Velikovsky nutjobs that "dark matter" is just a placeholder for whatever makes galaxies obey the Rubin curve and galaxy clusters obey the Zwicky effects and you keep pretending it means physicists think there is some sort of "matter" that is involved. There isn't, it doesn't, and you're lying. Get over it.

People keep telling you EUdiot/Velikovsky nutjobs that "dark matter" is just a placeholder

No, these "people" do not take DM as a placeholder & neither do you, you really do believe it exists. You simply like how that "placeholder" word resonates within the resonating cavity of the pseudo-science of pop-sci culture with you as an advocate for perpetual motion math, something for which you have been unable to come up with a Differential Equation, ordinary or partial.

@Benni What's the MATTER with you. What difference does it make what the apparent effect is called? Some think it can be explained by MOND and some don't. Some think it MATTERS some think it doesn't MATTER. But until the MATTER is unequivocally determined we can call it the Dense Alien Riemann Knots if we wish. What is good about the term DM is that the anti-DM camp will continue to devise arguments against and the DM group will continue to search; so between the two of them a solution will be found. If it wasn't controversial perhaps no one would care and not bother at all. It's all part of progress. Get used to it!

So there is no problem with DM? How do you know that when you have no idea what DM is (if it exists at all!)?

DM is a gradient in the DE. Don't worry. There's plenty of it to go around.

As for quantized matter, all I'm saying is that for each succeeding quantum of time, the particles of which matter is comprised are slightly bigger than they were in the proceeding quantum (in practice, time is the choice of states of matter from chaos so that this is true according to the laws of physics which define our universe.

In which case matter expands with each tick of the cosmic clock. I don't think this is what quantization means.

I think you are correct, this is not what quantization means. But matter can be viewed as expanding with each tick of the cosmic clock because the expansion of matter IS THE TICK OF THE COSMIC CLOCK...subjectively, of course!

I mean, gravitational effect might be different on different areas of that surface (dependent on local density of matter), wouldn't it?

Depends on how you pick the surface. Every point on the surface must be outside the galaxy and you have to pick the surface so that the g-force is the same on every point of that surface. Additionally every point on the surface must be as close to the galaxy as possible. Don't think people know that much about the g force around galaxies yet but maybe someday.

I get it. Matter gets lighter as time goes on and it expands. Eventually it gets so light it just sort of floats away. That's why we have the expansion of the U. Never thought of that.

Well, matter might get lighter, but as weight is a relative thing, and all the matter in the universe is expanding, it remains subjectively relatively the same weight to us. But of course weight for us is merely the amount of force necessary to accelerate a mass at the same rate as the surface of Earth is accelerating away from the Earth's centre of mass. And don't forget, force itself is only a convenient mathematical shorthand, and doesn't really exist - in our universe, every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, therefore considering two masses (M1 and M2) interacting resulting in two different accelerations (A1 and A2), then you have M1A1 = F = M2A2, so F is effectively redundant and only useful in modelling reality. This obviously also applies to many-body interactions.

We know that QFT cannot be the ultimate pointer to the explanations for space, matter, dark-matter, and the space-time universe; as it calculates a HUGE density of energy in space. (predicting the universe should collapse)

However as it also calculates many other experimentally measured results amazingly accurately (after a big normalisation fudge) it does give a place to start thinking outside of our box from.

Its certainly too much of a coincidence that the rotation curves of galaxies flatten so exactly regardless of their inner rotation rate and central black hole mass.

Its certainly too much of a coincidence that the rotation curves of galaxies flatten so exactly regardless of their inner rotation rate and central black hole mass.

Sure is. Galaxies are formed in the gravitational wells of dark energy according to the dictates of the gravitational well and the principle of least action. That is they are ordered so in such a way as to minimize their internal interactions and keep from early self-destruction.

We know that QFT cannot be the ultimate pointer to the explanations for space, matter, dark-matter, and the space-time universe; as it calculates a HUGE density of energy in space. (predicting the universe should collapse)

Don't understand why it shouldn't predict the U would explode which would be more like what it's actually doing. Anyway I think you have to have a huge density because without it you wouldn't have enough pressure gradient to form black holes. Maybe we should give QFT a second look.

If matter was indeed expanding like many people on this site seem to think that would cause a lot of issues I fail to see. In quantum physics small changes in size can have profound effects on materials. The whole field of metamaterials makes great use of this. If all matter was expanding, then atoms would become unstable and the universe as we know it would cease to exist. Luckily matter is not expanding and there is nothing to worry about.

If matter was indeed expanding like many people on this site seem to think that would cause a lot of issues I fail to see. In quantum physics small changes in size can have profound effects on materials. The whole field of metamaterials makes great use of this. If all matter was expanding, then atoms would become unstable and the universe as we know it would cease to exist. Luckily matter is not expanding and there is nothing to worry about.

How would you know whether or not matter was expanding, if ALL matter (including you) is expanding? "Gravity" is actually the force required to keep masses apart as they expand. Expanding matter provides the subjective experience we perceive as TIME. As for worrying about it, don't, as it has always gone on since the BB and always will until we eventually participate in a BH.By the way, the effect on materials is manifest in their molecular shapes, some of which are more robust than others thus giving degrees of hardness as they expand.

@reg sorry to burst your bubble, but time does not exist. It is a man made concept. Very useful for describing motion Etc., but it is simply an illusion.

You can think of the universe as just a giant chemical reaction. This would be why it is only one directional and time dilation is akin to enzymes or lack of enzymes.

Perhaps you are mis-reading my comments. Time is a subjective phenomenon created by the expansion of matter, each quantum of time being a state of matter, or rather the position of particles in different states of chaos chosen to be experienced as sequential quantums according to the laws of physics which dictate the conditions of our universe. It is nothing like a chemical reaction, and I can't believe that you are seriously suggesting any similarity to enzyme functionality as relevant to the subject.

Also, I see two major issues with your theory. One, the nuclear strong force would appear to be weakening as matter expanded. Two, since you account time to the expansion of matter how do you explain time dilation? Matter would need to expanding at different rates to account for this. This clearly, is not happening.

Also, I see two major issues with your theory. One, the nuclear strong force would appear to be weakening as matter expanded. Two, since you account time to the expansion of matter how do you explain time dilation? Matter would need to expanding at different rates to account for this. This clearly, is not happening.

Why would the nuclear strong force appear to be weakening? Against what would you be measuring it?Matter expands in general in all directions, but if it is moving relative to the observer it is expanding more in the direction of travel than in other directions, that's how it moves (you would have to read the entire theory to see how it explains relative motion and momentum). As time is dictated by the general expansion, the faster something moves relative to the observer the more of its expansion is dedicated to movement and less to general expansion, thus slowing its subjective time for the stationary observer.

@reg inside the nucleus of an atom there are protons and neutrons. If matter where to expand, then the distance between said particles would be expanding as well. Nuclear strong force is only strong over very short distances. As the distance between the particles increased due to matter expanding, the strong force would lose its force and atoms everywhere would explode due to the electromagnetic force. Very simple really. Not sure what part is confusing you.

I have just read an article (published October 30). Anyone here care to comment? Thanks in advance.'...If dark matter does interact through Higgs intermediaries, then this should affect—in a reverse sense—how Higgs bosons decay. Specifically, some fraction of Higgs bosons created in the LHC should decay into dark matter particles, which would escape detection. The fact that none of these "invisible decays" have been observed allows researchers to set a lower limit on the likelihood, or cross section, for dark matter particles interacting with a nucleon.....Martin Hoferichter of the University of Washington, Seattle, and his colleagues reevaluate this Higgs-nucleon coupling....' @Merrit Yes, I was thinking the same. I think Reg is getting his 'expansions' mixed, that is, applying classical thought to quantum levels, Ha!

@reg inside the nucleus of an atom there are protons and neutrons. If matter where to expand, then the distance between said particles would be expanding as well. Nuclear strong force is only strong over very short distances. As the distance between the particles increased due to matter expanding, the strong force would lose its force and atoms everywhere would explode due to the electromagnetic force. Very simple really. Not sure what part is confusing you.

Just as the Earth and Moon expand whilst the RELATIVE distance between them remains the same, so the fundamental particles of matter expand yet the distance between them remains RELATIVELY the same. And please don't confuse protons and neutrons with fundamental particles. Its not me who is confused....By the way, Mimoth, the basis of the theory is the quantum nature of the universe, and exactly why it is quantum rather than classical.

I have just read an article (published October 30). Anyone here care to comment? Thanks in advance.'...If dark matter does interact through Higgs intermediaries, then this should affect—in a reverse sense—how Higgs bosons decay. Specifically, some fraction of Higgs bosons created in the LHC should decay into dark matter particles, which would escape detection. The fact that none of these "invisible decays" have been observed allows researchers to set a lower limit on the likelihood, or cross section, for dark matter particles interacting with a nucleon.....Martin Hoferichter of the University of Washington, Seattle, and his colleagues reevaluate this Higgs-nucleon coupling....' @Merrit Yes, I was thinking the same. I think Reg is getting his 'expansions' mixed, that is, applying classical thought to quantum levels, Ha!

@reg the distance value for forces such as the strong force and gravity is measured from the center of gravity of two objects, not the distance between their surfaces. If two particles in the nucleus are touching, then this distance would be equal to the diameter of the particle which would indeed increase if said matter was expanding. I can not put this any more simple for you. Your idea is complete garbage. Please move on.

@MerritIf you had bothered to read the previous comments, you would know that I postulate that gravity does not exist as a force. You should also know that in quantum context it is meaningless to talk about the surface of objects, and your concept of two fundamental particles touching indicates a lack of thought and a reluctance to deeply consider any alternative to the current scientific establishment view. Please either think again about the fact that as far as we are concerned although the fundamental particles have expanded and also the distance between them, to our universe they REMAIN THE SAME DISTANCE APART. Unless you can grasp this concept, and realise that although the strong nuclear force has weakened in underlying reality, to us in our universe it has NOT CHANGED, then I suggest you stop hurting your brain and move off....

Not so much predictions as observations...e.g. If you are in a box, there is no way of telling whether you are on the surface of Earth or in a spaceship accelerating at about 10mss (OK, pedants could say if you drop a weight at different end of the box (spaceship) the weights would fall in parallel, whereas on Earth they would converge towards the centre of the Earth, but I'm assuming a very small box (spaceship).- any bigger, and on Earth either the weight would be heavier in the middle of the box than at the ends or the floor of the spaceship would be curved to match Earth's surface). So gravity is simply acceleration, why invent it in the first place....I think we started this thread talking about galaxies and DM, and in an earlier comment I explained how using each successive quantum of time as a completely new starting point with observed velocity and expansion theory rather than gravity, star rotation in galaxies fits the observed motions without DM.No more room...

@reg the distance value for forces such as the strong force and gravity is measured from the center of gravity of two objects, not the distance between their surfaces. If two particles in the nucleus are touching, then this distance would be equal to the diameter of the particle which would indeed increase if said matter was expanding....

Forgot to mention that, by experimental observation, the binding force between quarks initially INCREASES as they move further apart. That is, it increases as far as we in our universe observe. You will have to read about QCD to appreciate this. However, I do not subscribe to the idea that quarks are the fundamental building particles of our universe. For example, anything that can be created, such as a photon, must have constituent parts, so a photon is at least two fundamental particles. As many features of sub-atomic particles require that a particle with one third of the charge of an electron exists, simplest model is two/photon.

@reg expanding matter can't explain the force of gravity. That doesn't make sense at all. It could potentially work for say people on the surface of the earth, but would have no effect what so ever on say the moon earth relationship. Expanding matter has no way to explain orbits.

@reg expanding matter can't explain the force of gravity. That doesn't make sense at all. It could potentially work for say people on the surface of the earth, but would have no effect what so ever on say the moon earth relationship. Expanding matter has no way to explain orbits.

Sorry to burst your baloon, Merrit, but expanding matter and quantum time explain orbits very well. I don't intend to try to do this in the limited space here, and there are myriads of postings on the internet which agree with you, not me (see http://www.mathpa...h077.htm for an example of this containing numerous fallacious assumptions).

@reg at this point I am pretty sure you are a troll. Your theory is as absurd as the flat earthers

Well no, I'm not. But as you seem to be so keen on trading insults, its obvious you are. And by rejecting expansion theory without reading it, never mind understanding it, you also display the mindset of the flat earthers yourself. You cling desperately to the already-discredited theories that fail dismally to explain the multitude of discrepancies obvious to all impartial observers. I see no point in continuing this exchange, so wish you goodbye.

@nikola_milovic_378 x 4, so what you're describing really is 'doesn't matter' (DM eh?) because of '...ORDER...'. With such densely packed comments, they surely do mimic DM so much so I'm surprised this thread hasn't disappeared through their own gravitational collapse, Ha!

...talk about what matter is and what it forms.How can you discuss and imagine that there is a dark matter, which you can not notice, when you do not know how it is created and how this matter that we have formed is disappearing. Imagine, we formed from something, but we do not know what it is...

Do not despair - there is hope. For example in special relativity for a quantized form of matter traveling at 1/2 the speed of light it's effective mass is increased by a factor of 1/3. This effect happens due to turbulence in spacetime in the environs of the traveling matter. Turbulence leading to a gradient in spacetime energy density fits precisely the definition of matter. Not a type you can quantize, however, so we can just call it dark matter.

...Turbulence leading to a gradient in spacetime energy density fits precisely the definition of matter.

Well not exactly. The gradient defines gravity. Quantized matter only causes a gradient because it blocks out spacetime and its energy density. That is, when calculating the energy density you have to subtract out the volume of spacetime occupied by quantized matter and ignore its internal energy.

E-mail the story

Physics still can't identify matter that makes up the majority of the universe

Note

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose.
The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Your message

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

Your Privacy

This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, and provide content from third parties.
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy
and Terms of Use.